americans have exactly the government they deserve?

Page 2 of 2 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

04 Mar 2010, 7:52 am

The problem is not one of government, but of society.

The Founding Fathers limited voting rights only to those who owned land....as it should be. They rationalized that those most impacted by government's actions are the ones who should have the most say.

Now, anyone can vote, and as it's been observed, a democratic process falls apart once the masses realize they can vote themselves largess from the state treasury....then it's all about voting for the person who promises the biggest part of the government pie.

The government was only supposed to be in session for a couple of weeks a year. Now it's a full time job, and not because the job got tougher, but because we allowed it to grow itself in ways the Founding Fathers expressly prohibited.

The strength of what we were handed depended on individual responsibility and a desire to manage our own affairs. As we got lazier and wanted someone else to do it for us, the bigger government got, and the more corrupt it got.

To be fair, this same process happens to pretty much every from of government in time.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

04 Mar 2010, 8:00 am

zer0netgain wrote:
The problem is not one of government, but of society.

The Founding Fathers limited voting rights only to those who owned land....as it should be. They rationalized that those most impacted by government's actions are the ones who should have the most say.

Now, anyone can vote, and as it's been observed, a democratic process falls apart once the masses realize they can vote themselves largess from the state treasury....then it's all about voting for the person who promises the biggest part of the government pie.

The government was only supposed to be in session for a couple of weeks a year. Now it's a full time job, and not because the job got tougher, but because we allowed it to grow itself in ways the Founding Fathers expressly prohibited.

The strength of what we were handed depended on individual responsibility and a desire to manage our own affairs. As we got lazier and wanted someone else to do it for us, the bigger government got, and the more corrupt it got.

To be fair, this same process happens to pretty much every from of government in time.


The logic of the head of government to blame government for everybody's problems promoted by Reagan is a rather neat way of sidestepping the problem of being a bad leader. The corruption that is festering the government is financed by corporations and the financial sector and to shift the blame for the results of their operations to the "lazy citizenry" is a great propaganda ploy.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,685
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

04 Mar 2010, 11:02 pm

Unorthodox wrote:
It's not normally my style to let others do my arguing for me, but I think this op-ed does a much better job of answering the OP than I could.

Hey, its Charles Krauthammer at least - can't fault you on that.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


druidsbird
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 505
Location: not Alderaan

10 Mar 2010, 3:34 pm

auntblabby wrote:
unfortunately, there is an entire half [roughly] of us stateside types who believe that, in addition to the civic duties you mentioned, there is a bedrock patriotic responsibility to be financially prosperous and successful and to eschew bad luck by due diligence/prudence- or if you can't do the lucky thing then at least have the decency to just go away so good lucky citizens don't have to be bothered or inconvenienced in any way. there is a pronounced anti-communitarian ornery streak in this land, a mile deep and 3,000 [approx.] miles wide.


Isn't that called the Protestant Ethic?


_________________
Darth Vader. Cool.


xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

10 Mar 2010, 4:25 pm

The tax reform that removed loopholes turned out to be a disaster, according to other analyses. The previous code with its loopholes was designed to direct private investment in productive ways, to provide incentives for this. Following the "simplifications", this accelerated the financialisation of the economy, the diversion of funds away from productive activities to the "making money on money", on milking enterprises, on shifting production off-shore and so on. The truth is that state direction for economic development is far superior than having "the market" decide - despite the massive propaganda to the contrary which in my opinion has caused a massive belief in that propaganda to the detriment of all.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

10 Mar 2010, 4:28 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
The problem is not one of government, but of society.

The Founding Fathers limited voting rights only to those who owned land....as it should be. They rationalized that those most impacted by government's actions are the ones who should have the most say.

Now, anyone can vote, and as it's been observed, a democratic process falls apart once the masses realize they can vote themselves largess from the state treasury....then it's all about voting for the person who promises the biggest part of the government pie.

The government was only supposed to be in session for a couple of weeks a year. Now it's a full time job, and not because the job got tougher, but because we allowed it to grow itself in ways the Founding Fathers expressly prohibited.

The strength of what we were handed depended on individual responsibility and a desire to manage our own affairs. As we got lazier and wanted someone else to do it for us, the bigger government got, and the more corrupt it got.

To be fair, this same process happens to pretty much every from of government in time.


So people with no land has nothing to lose as a result of government policy? The poor are especially vulnerable to such things as, say, enslavement, either by being owned by someone or through debt peonage. Governments run by landowners of course would make such far more likely than if the poor had a vote. This idea that only rich people have a stake in society and things to lose is a false one.

People don't vote for more largesse from the state treasury, they vote for a larger share of the fruits of production, and to ensure that they get this through laws passed. Back in the days of slavery of course there was no problem about the little people taking too much, was there.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Mar 2010, 7:20 pm

xenon13 wrote:

So people with no land has nothing to lose as a result of government policy? The poor are especially vulnerable to such things as, say, enslavement, either by being owned by someone or through debt peonage. Governments run by landowners of course would make such far more likely than if the poor had a vote. This idea that only rich people have a stake in society and things to lose is a false one.



People who do not own land, or the means of production or who are not self employed have a lesser stake in the society and are more likely to be led astray by demagogues. Starting with the Andrew Jackson administration the requirements to vote have been relaxed and there has been a decline in the quality of governance since then.

ruveyn



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,245
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Mar 2010, 7:30 pm

druidsbird wrote:
Isn't that called the Protestant Ethic?


you may be right but just the same, i will continue to stick with my somewhat quaint sentiment that we the people can be better than that. mediocrity [unenlightened self interest, "the virtue of selfishness"] only sees itself in the mirror. so, when one mocks the golden rule, one is really mocking oneself in the end.



Last edited by auntblabby on 10 Mar 2010, 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

10 Mar 2010, 7:31 pm

That's true. First they let non-White males vote. Then they let (horrors) women vote.

If politicians didn't have to pander to non-Whites and to women, think of how much better the country would be.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,245
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Mar 2010, 7:35 pm

xenon13 wrote:
People don't vote for more largesse from the state treasury, they vote for a larger share of the fruits of production, and to ensure that they get this through laws passed. Back in the days of slavery of course there was no problem about the little people taking too much, was there.


thank you for that. but if it were up to a vote of the people, there would still be slavery. i would not be proud of us at all.



druidsbird
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 505
Location: not Alderaan

10 Mar 2010, 11:06 pm

As long as there are Humans governing other Humans, then some will be abused to fulfill the "self-interest" of others. "Self-interest" being what I call greed, since the degree to which it is pursued is entirely unnecessary, unethical, and wrong.

All people should have rights, and also responsibilities to go along with those rights. That is the only way to have a self-sustaining society.

All people should have the assurance of a basic quality of life. Food, water, shelter, medical care, and access to education -should- be entitlements. For everybody.

Hard work, public service, and exercise of democracy (voting) should be responsibilities.

As long as there are some who fulfill their responsibilities, yet do not have that standard quality of life, then resources -should- be redistributed to bring society closer to balance.

The problem is that excess is pursued, and power is left unchecked, and as a result the weaker individuals in a society are victimized for the even greater benefit of the powerful few. That is inhumane. It should be corrected.

This is just what I believe. But, then again, I also believe that if I had the absolute power of monarchy over the entire world, I would use it like a bloodthirsty tyrant. Kind of like Leto II, God Emperor of Dune, only cuter.

Because power corrupts, etc... And greed is as much a symptom of success as it is a cause of it.


_________________
Darth Vader. Cool.


xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

10 Mar 2010, 11:17 pm

ruveyn wrote:
xenon13 wrote:

So people with no land has nothing to lose as a result of government policy? The poor are especially vulnerable to such things as, say, enslavement, either by being owned by someone or through debt peonage. Governments run by landowners of course would make such far more likely than if the poor had a vote. This idea that only rich people have a stake in society and things to lose is a false one.



People who do not own land, or the means of production or who are not self employed have a lesser stake in the society and are more likely to be led astray by demagogues. Starting with the Andrew Jackson administration the requirements to vote have been relaxed and there has been a decline in the quality of governance since then.

ruveyn


I guess so. The abolition of slavery clearly proves that the quality of governance had declined.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

10 Mar 2010, 11:20 pm

auntblabby wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
People don't vote for more largesse from the state treasury, they vote for a larger share of the fruits of production, and to ensure that they get this through laws passed. Back in the days of slavery of course there was no problem about the little people taking too much, was there.


thank you for that. but if it were up to a vote of the people, there would still be slavery. i would not be proud of us at all.


No, there would not. If the slaves would vote, and they are people certainly, they'd oppose it unless of course the slave owners could be compelled to make slave life more comfortable. Giving the poor the vote prevents more extreme forms of exploitation which is essentially the slow murder of millions of people. The stakes for them are far, far higher than those of the rich. I suppose that the rentiers and idle rich and absentee landlords may fear political decisions made that conclude that they are but economic overhead and can be done away with but the loss will be minimal. Extreme exploitation of far greater numbers of people is by far a greater evil than dispossessing absentee landlords.



druidsbird
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 505
Location: not Alderaan

10 Mar 2010, 11:23 pm

[quote="xenon13]Extreme exploitation of far greater numbers of people is by far a greater evil than dispossessing absentee landlords.[/quote]

Agreed, roll out the guillotine.


_________________
Darth Vader. Cool.


SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

10 Mar 2010, 11:45 pm

The problem with this country is there are too many selfish, ignorant, greedy, and irresponsible people, and now all of their lavish lifestyles, self-indulgences, short-sightedness, and lack of morals, and ethics is coming back to bite them. It's not just the government, and corporations, it's people everywhere.

Everything and everyone in our lives is interconnected, and every wrong decision, selfish act, etc. will eventually come full circle, and come back to haunt us one way or another. People are now starting to see this.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Mar 2010, 10:00 am

auntblabby wrote:
[ there is a pronounced anti-communitarian ornery streak in this land, a mile deep and 3,000 [approx.] miles wide.


And thanks be for that!

ruveyn